GMSkarka said:
However, at the core of that criticism is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this industry operates. The criticism leveled at the writer is an insult, because he (or she) is being blamed for the decisions of editors, line developers and publishers.
Writers don't make these decisions. They write. Internet critics blast the writer, not even thinking about the fact that the Writer was adhering to the guidelines they were given.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.
A publisher usually provides but general guidelines to a writer, not exacting specifics to the point that the writer is but the publisher’s amanuensis or automaton.
The editor usually edits and avoids rewriting a competently written manuscript.
The writer remains the principle architect of the manuscript, particularly in the details.
It goes too far, I think, to say there is a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the process, certainly to an extent that would absolve a writer for the chiefmost responsibility for what is written.
I think you make too much of the publisher’s and editor’s roles.
In any event, a good writer has two audiences, I think. One is, of course, the publisher. The other is the ultimate consumer, the gaming public. The good writer should write for both.
While it is not likely good form to "blame" a publisher for a particular, mandated design decision, the writer, in response to criticism, can explain why things were done the way they were in the manuscript, short of "blaming." At the other end of the spectrum, if the writer anticipates a potentially strong reaction from the public, the writer should take pains to explain matters within the text. To paraphrase - a sound explanation turn’eth away wrath.
Where there is an established canon, a writer ignores or disregards it, without sound explanation, at his or her peril. Gamers invested in a particular subject matter, fans, can hardly be faulted for expecting the writer in such case to write to the generally accepted expectations of the setting or for becoming loudly critical of a writer who wrote without care as to what has come before. For the writer, it may be a job but for the gamer it is more likely to be a particular point of interest, even passion. That may seem silly at some level but it is a reality with respect to how any number of gamers see what they consider "their" game. Indeed, the hobby would likely not exist, or certainly be poorer, were it not capable of engendering such strong feelings from a goodly number of gamers. A good writer will write accordingly and, I believe, can be held a less than good writer if they simply do what they will without regard to or for the consumers’ feelings which will be grounded in such notions of "canon." Writers unable or uncomfortable with such expectations should limit themselves to writing entirely new material with no prior history. However, even in such event, a topic may have certain conventions, the functional equivalent of canon.
A writer is not hogtied by either canon or convention, but where such are present must be creative within such bounds. This seems not unreasonable or unworkable to me.
Is a writer insulted if it is said he or she "screwed up" by failing to be mindful of accepted canon or convention without explanation? I think not for such insult is at an irreducible level synonymous with the otherwise impersonal criticism. That one might say "the work" ignores canon, rather than the "the author" ignores canon, is a fine point of politesse without a meaningful difference, save a lessened likelihood of hurt feelings.
I think in the final analysis the writer cannot avoid criticism for what they wrote, even personal criticism, if such is appropriate, being attributable to the writer’s choices or decisions.
